Dataset Information

Efficacy of Crizotinib, Ceritinib, and Alectinib in ALK-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Treatment: A Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials.

ABSTRACT: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-inhibitors in the treatment of ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) by using a meta-analysis of clinical trials. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Clinicaltrials.gov by using keywords related to the topic in August 2018. The pooled effect sizes were calculated based on a random-effects model. We also performed subgroup meta-analysis by types of ALK inhibitors (crizotinib, ceritinib, and alectinib). A total of 20 clinical trials with 10 single-arm trials and 10 double-arm trials were included in the final meta-analysis. The median overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), 1 year survival rate, and 2 year survival rate were 19.14 months, 8.47 months, 62%, 78%, 74%, and 62%, respectively. ALK inhibitors showed a significantly superior efficacy compared with chemotherapy (hazard ratio (HR) for OS, 0.83; HR for PFS, 0.43; rate difference (RD) for ORR, 0.23; and RD for DCR, 0.10). The current meta-analysis of clinical trials showed the significant efficacy of ALK inhibitors in the treatment of ALK-positive NSCLC. Further head-to-head trials are needed to compare their efficacy with other types of NSCLC treatment regimens. PROSPERO registration: CRD42018085987.

SUBMITTER: Hoang T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7139871 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy of Crizotinib, Ceritinib, and Alectinib in ALK-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Treatment: A Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials.

Hoang Tung T Myung Seung-Kwon SK Pham Thu Thi TT Park Boyoung B

Cancers 20200225 3

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-inhibitors in the treatment of ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) by using a meta-analysis of clinical trials. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Clinicaltrials.gov by using keywords related to the topic in August 2018. The pooled effect sizes were calculated based on a random-effects model. We also performed subgroup meta-analysis by types of ALK inhibitors (crizotinib, ceritinib, and alect ...[more]

PMID: 32106398

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of alectinib versus crizotinib in the treatment of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) positive non-small-cell lung cancer.MethodsStudies about the efficacy of alectinib versus crizotinib in the treatment of ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer were searched in PubMed, Scopus, Embase and the Cocharane Library from inception to February 15, 2020. Two reviewers independently screened these studies, extracted the data, assessed the risk of bias in the included studies by using the Cochrane risk assessment tool, and then used review manager 5.3 software for meta-analysis.ResultsThree studies comprising a total of 697 patients with ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer were included, 380 in the alectinib group and 317 in the crizotinib group. The dose of alectinib (300 mg) in J-ALEX were lower than the approved dose (600 mg), however the crizotinib group in all three studies received the recommended dose (250 mg). Performance bias was high in all three studies whereas, and the attrition bias was high in two studies (Toyoaki Hida 2017 and Solange peters 2017). The results of meta-analysis showed that: the overall response rate [OR = 2.07, 95% CI (1.41, 3.06), P = 0.0002], the progression free survival [HR = 0.34, 95% CI (0.21, 0.55), P <0.0001], the partial response [OR = 1.71, 95% CI (1.19, 2.46), P = 0.003], P = 0.001], in alectinib group were higher than that of crizotinib group. Though the total number of events in complete response and the disease control rate were more in alectinib group than that of crizotinib group, the meta-analysis results shows no significant differences between two drugs in the disease control rate [OR = 2.24, 95% CI (0.56, 8.88), P = 0.25], the complete response [OR = 1.82, 95% CI (0.75, 4.45), P = 0.19]. In addition, the number of events in the stable disease [OR = 0.45, 95% CI (0.28, O.74), P = 0.001], and the adverse events [OR = 0.50, 95% CI (0.23, 0.81), P = <0.0001] in alectinib group were lower than that of crizotinib group.ConclusionAlectinib in terms of overall response rate, progression-free survival and partial response is superior to crizotinib in the treatment of ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer and is well tolerated. Compared with crizotinib, alectinib is more effective than crizotinib and has a lower incidence of total adverse reactions. Meta-analysis results confirm the strong base for alectinib as a first-line treatment for ALK-positive NSCLC.

Project description:ImportanceQuantitative assessment of bias from unmeasured confounding and missing data can help evaluate uncertainty in findings from indirect comparisons using real-world data (RWD).ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of alectinib vs ceritinib in terms of overall survival (OS) in patients with ALK-positive, crizotinib-refractory, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and to assess the sensitivity of these findings to unmeasured confounding and missing data assumptions.Design, setting, and participantsThis comparative effectiveness research study compared patients from 2 phase 2 alectinib trials and real-world patients. Patients were monitored from June 2013 to March 2020. Comparisons of interest were between alectinib trial data vs ceritinib RWD and alectinib RWD vs ceritinib RWD. RWD treatment groups were selected from nationally representative cancer data from US cancer clinics, the majority from community centers. Participants were ALK-positive patients aged 18 years or older with advanced NSCLC, prior exposure to crizotinib, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (PS) of 0 to 2. Data analysis was performed from October 2020 to March 2021.ExposuresInitiation of alectinib or ceritinib therapy.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcome was OS.ResultsIn total, there were 355 patients: 183 (85 men [46.4%]) in the alectinib trial, 91 (43 men [47.3%]) in the ceritinib RWD group, and 81 (38 men [46.9%]) in the alectinib RWD group. Patients in the alectinib trial were younger (mean [SD] age, 52.53 [11.18] vs 57.97 [11.71] years), more heavily pretreated (mean [SD] number of prior therapy lines, 1.95 [0.72] vs 1.47 [0.81]), and had more favorable baseline ECOG PS (ECOG PS of 0 or 1, 165 patients [90.2%] vs 37 patients [77.1%]) than those in the ceritinib RWD group. The alectinib RWD group (mean [SD] age, 58.69 [11.26] years) had more patients with favorable ECOG PS (ECOG PS of 0 or 1, 49 patients [92.4%] vs 37 patients [77.1%]) and more White patients (56 patients [72.7%] vs 53 patients [62.4%]) compared with the ceritinib group. Compared with ceritinib RWD, alectinib-exposed patients had significantly longer OS in alectinib trials (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.59; 95% CI, 0.44-0.75; P < .001) and alectinib RWD (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.29-0.63; P < .001) after adjustment for baseline confounders. For the worst-case HR estimate of 0.59, residual confounding by a hypothetical confounder associated with mortality and treatment by a risk ratio greater than 2.24 was required to reverse the findings. Conclusions were robust to plausible deviations from random missingness for missing ECOG PS and underrecorded comorbidities and central nervous system metastases in RWD.Conclusions and relevanceAlectinib exposure was associated with longer OS compared with ceritinib in patients with ALK-positive NSCLC, and only substantial levels of bias examined reversed the findings. These findings suggest that quantitative bias analysis can be a useful tool to address uncertainty of findings for decision-makers considering RWD.

Project description:Alectinib--a highly selective, CNS-active, ALK inhibitor-showed promising clinical activity in crizotinib-naive and crizotinib-resistant patients with ALK-rearranged (ALK-positive) non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of alectinib in patients with ALK-positive NSCLC who progressed on previous crizotinib.We did a phase 2 study at 27 centres in the USA and Canada. We enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with stage IIIB-IV, ALK-positive NSCLC who had progressed after crizotinib. Patients were treated with oral alectinib 600 mg twice daily until progression, death, or withdrawal. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving an objective response by an independent review committee using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. Response endpoints were assessed in the response-evaluable population (ie, patients with measurable disease at baseline who received at least one dose of study drug), and efficacy and safety analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population (all enrolled patients). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01871805. The study is ongoing and patients are still receiving treatment.Between Sept 4, 2013, and Aug 4, 2014, 87 patients were enrolled into the study (intention-to-treat population). At the time of the primary analysis (median follow-up 4·8 months [IQR 3·3-7·1]), 33 of 69 patients with measurable disease at baseline had a confirmed partial response; thus, the proportion of patients achieving an objective response by the independent review committee was 48% (95% CI 36-60). Adverse events were predominantly grade 1 or 2, most commonly constipation (31 [36%]), fatigue (29 [33%]), myalgia 21 [24%]), and peripheral oedema 20 [23%]). The most common grade 3 and 4 adverse events were changes in laboratory values, including increased blood creatine phosphokinase (seven [8%]), increased alanine aminotransferase (five [6%]), and increased aspartate aminotransferase (four [5%]). Two patients died: one had a haemorrhage (judged related to study treatment), and one had disease progression and a history of stroke (judged unrelated to treatment).Alectinib showed clinical activity and was well tolerated in patients with ALK-positive NSCLC who had progressed on crizotinib. Therefore, alectinib could be a suitable treatment for patients with ALK-positive disease who have progressed on crizotinib.F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Project description:Background:The phase III ALEX study in patients with treatment-naive advanced anaplastic lymphoma kinase mutation-positive (ALK+) non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) met its primary end point of improved progression-free survival (PFS) with alectinib versus crizotinib. Here, we present detailed central nervous system (CNS) efficacy data from ALEX. Patients and methods:Overall, 303 patients aged ?18?years underwent 1:1 randomization to receive twice-daily doses of alectinib 600?mg or crizotinib 250?mg. Brain imaging was conducted in all patients at baseline and every subsequent 8?weeks. End points (analyzed by subgroup: patients with/without baseline CNS metastases; patients with/without prior radiotherapy) included PFS, CNS objective response rate (ORR), and time to CNS progression. Results:In total, 122 patients had Independent Review Committee-assessed baseline CNS metastases (alectinib, n?=?64; crizotinib, n?=?58), 43 had measurable lesions (alectinib, n?=?21; crizotinib, n?=?22), and 46 had received prior radiotherapy (alectinib, n?=?25; crizotinib, n?=?21). Investigator-assessed PFS with alectinib was consistent between patients with baseline CNS metastases [hazard ratio (HR) 0.40, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.25-0.64] and those without (HR 0.51, 95% CI: 0.33-0.80, P interaction = 0.36). Similar results were seen in patients regardless of prior radiotherapy. Time to CNS progression was significantly longer with alectinib versus crizotinib and comparable between patients with and without baseline CNS metastases (P?<?0.0001). CNS ORR was 85.7% with alectinib versus 71.4% with crizotinib in patients who received prior radiotherapy and 78.6% versus 40.0%, respectively, in those who had not. Conclusion:Alectinib demonstrated superior CNS activity and significantly delayed CNS progression versus crizotinib in patients with previously untreated, advanced ALK+ NSCLC, irrespective of prior CNS disease or radiotherapy. Clinical trial registration:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02075840.

Dataset Information

Efficacy of Crizotinib, Ceritinib, and Alectinib in ALK-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Treatment: A Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials.

Publications

Efficacy of Crizotinib, Ceritinib, and Alectinib in ALK-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Treatment: A Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets